My Little Moments

Sunday, June 26, 2016

On the winter solstice of Tasmanian winter, Xuan Ni and I welcomed the arrival of our beloved daughter Tara.

The days will be longer, and life as we knew it is changed forever.

In Irish Gaelic language, Tara is taken to mean "Queen". In Sanskrit, Tara means star.

Your Chinese name is 靖玟 (jìng mín).

靖 － 平安、恭敬。
(Calm and peaceful)

玟 － 古同“珉”，意为像玉的石头, 或玉的纹理。
(Stone resembling jade, or streaks in jade)

The word 玟 is also in honour of your mother's name 璇, which means 美玉 (beautiful jade).

May you be at peace and beautiful, my little Tara. May you grow up to be a strong and beautiful woman like your mother. May you be showered with love in every day of your life, as you deserve nothing less.

1 comments:

Friday, December 19, 2014

This week, the killing of two innocent Australians by a Muslim gunman in the Sydney hostage crisis has shoved reluctant Australians right into the spotlight of global terrorism. Prior to this, Australians have always felt like a safe spectator due to the country's seclusion from the rest of the world. Terrorism is something you associate with USA, Afghanistan and the Middle East; not with the laid-back, easy-going country where an excellent welfare system keeps most people at peace. Despite the relatively low mortality count in the context of the macabre history of terrorism, this Sydney chapter is turning into a watershed incident. It heralds the era of Australia finally facing Islamic terrorism in its own soil.

Now, religion extremism is nothing new; in fact, wars waged in the name of religion are as old as religion itself. There is a popular sentiment that our generation is living through the brunt of religion extremism in recent years, however I argue that this merely reflects the globalised and decentralised nature of the modern warfare, and perhaps the freshness of our memory.

Australia has done as well as any country could have done in the face of the crisis. While there are the unavoidable Islamophobes who lambast the entire religion, most people have aligned themselves with the #illridewithyou sentiment, a grass-root movement which started with a woman offering to walk with a Muslim woman who removed her religious headdress to avoid becoming a target of Islamophobic sentiment in the wake of the hostage situation. Islamic leaders in Australia unanimously voiced their renouncement of the terrorist act, while a few mosques around the country organised interfaith vigils attended by people of all faiths.

All these are truly positive development towards the resolution of religious conflicts. Even though we might not see it directly, someone somewhere who might grow up to become a terrorist, is being touched by the gesture of human kindness, and would now be a moderate human being with appreciation of unfettered empathy.

This, however, does not address the core question: Why does religion make people kill, and what can we do to stop it? Many answers have been offered, ranging from the defensive "religion does not kill, people kill using religion as the pretext", to the outright accusation of Islam being based on violent tenets, while blissfully ignoring the similarly violent verses in other major religious scriptures. Some militant atheists go as far as claiming that religion is inherently bad for our civilisation.

Throughout the years, I have had my fair share of dabbling with religion-talks, mostly through online forums. I grew through different phases. From the uninitiated pseudo-Buddhist, I morphed variously into the undecided, the almost-militant atheist, and finally becoming the comfortable agnostic. Through the exchanges I had with people of various faiths and non-faiths, I became fascinated by the concept of "faith".

Faith is at the core of almost every religion. It means complete trust. It means a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. In some cases, it even means a persistent belief despite evidence to the contrary. The latter also happens to be the definition of the word "delusion".

Within the context of religions, faith is seen as a virtue. In many settings, the unshakable belief is indeed the most valuable thing about religion. In the face of uncertainty, knowing that the heavenly Father is up there hearing your prayer and guiding you into the light would give anyone unbelievable power and hope. In a similar scenario, a militant materialist atheist could only count on the emotionless statistics and probability, in a universe governed only by the ruthless laws of physics. We are just a bag of molecules with some neural synapses forming this thing we call "consciousness", evolving through generations just to propagate our genes, apparently. How boring and how meaningless.

All of us would have heard some versions of sermons where we are encouraged to hold strong to our faith even when it is shaken, to believe when the belief is challenged. Time and again, we are drilled into our minds that only the faithful is a good believer. Apart from some rare exceptions such as Buddhism, few religions in this world encourage its believers to question the veracity of its teaching.

Unfortunately, faith can sometimes transform into delusion, and delusion is the father of much human depravity. One could argue that even if one's faith turns out to be ultimately untrue, there's no harm in believing in something good. And this is right most of the time. Even if Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other religion turn out to be a huge fairy tale and there's no God or afterlife, many good things would have come out from the good followers of major religions during their times on Earth, as they live their lives based on faith.

On the other hand, living our lives based on absolute faith could also make us do horrible things. It is no secret that both the Bible and the holy Quran contain verses which condone and encourage the alienation and killing of non-believers. In response to these violent verses, the peaceful believers often quote other verses which encourage acceptance and co-existence; but this does not prevent some other "faithful" believers to interpret the violent verses literally and act accordingly. Suicidal terrorists' willingness to kill themselves in the act is unthinkable for many of us, but to them it is all natural as they KNOW that they will be rewarded with martyrdom and bountiful awards in the eternal life. Through a lifetime of indoctrination, these people have lost the innate ability to think "what if I am wrong".

I argue that absolute faith is bad and should be discouraged. Even though we do not outright promote it or admit it, rational believers already renounce absolute faith. When you do not attack your neighbour of different faith, you are no longer blindly faithful - you allow the secular ethics of "thou shalt not harm others" to trump the many verses which ask you to kill the non-believers. Even the moderate religious leaders openly admit that they sometimes question the existence of God. Questioning is not a bad thing, it is what make us human, and it is what makes us good.

In the face of religious extremism, we are so used to religious moderates from both sides claiming that "these terrorists do not represent my religion". I think that saying so is not truly honest - yes, the terrorists do not represent the moderate brand of your religion, but it still is an expression and interpretation of the religion. We only call them "extremists" because we the moderates have decided to gloss over the violent aspects of our religions with our peaceful intentions.

At the end of the day, I am not arrogant enough to tell people how and what to believe. However, I do hope that we start teaching our children to question, and to always accept the possibility that "I could be wrong". Bertrand Russells hit the nail on the head when he said, "Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality." If he is alive today, I imagine he could have also said that "Not to be absolutely certain is the key to curbing religious fanaticism, and to reduce blood shed in the name of Gods".

0
comments:

Monday, August 04, 2014

Ever since photoshop was invented, it has become commonplace for people to ask "Is this photoshopped" whenever they see a photo which is "too good to be true". It is sometimes annoying for photography enthusiasts to come across this question. While it may not be the actual intention, such question could be taken as an insinuation that the photographer is not as skillful as initially thought.

Just imagine a chef who's asked "Did you put MSG in?" for every nice dish he has prepared.

The fact is, I photoshop [see note] the vast majority of my photos that I publish online these days, and it is not something I need to hide.

Recently I posted a photo on social media which I was quite happy with. It was taken in Tasmanian winter from Hobart Waterfront, which is conveniently just a few minutes' walk from my residence here in this seaside town. This is my result: (yes, the "photoshopped" version)

A good friend of mine immediately asked "Is this photoshopped?". While I did not take much offence from this usual line of questioning, I was glad to use opportunity to explore the fact that photoshopping a photo is not always the same as "cheating".

This is the original, straight-out-of-camera version of the photo above:

It is already a pretty decent shot, and one that I would have been happy enough to publish in my social media. To produce this shot I had the following combination

Weather: It's Tasmanian winter where the Mount Wellington is snow-capped (it could have been more densely capped but I might just have to try another time). The cloud has also been kind enough to not obscure the summit.

Time: Sunset (or sunrise) is the best time to bring out the best colours of a landscape.

Equipment: Any semi-decent camera on a tripod would have been able to produce this photo, although having a good body and a good lens probably helped produce the best quality possible for a given scene. I use Canon 5D mark II paired with Canon 24-70mm f/2.8, mounted on a sturdy tripod. It is also shot in RAW to enable the most editing flexibility.

Composition / Location: Rule of third (with more emphasis on the sky). This is taken from a strategic spot at the Waterfront where a clear layering of the boats, town and then the mountain is formed.

Exposure Setting: I used manual exposure (with the help of live view to get an accurate exposure). To get a smooth water I used a long-ish exposure of 0.8s (hence the absolute need for a tripod). A longer exposure would have made it even smoother; but the boat would become blurry because of the constant movements. Low ISO (for best colour and minimum noise) and medium aperture (for maximum sharpness and depth of field) are standard as per most landscape photos.

White Balance: An important setting I went for is "shade" white balance which helps bring out the glorious warmth of a sunset. The default setting on the camera (the "auto white balance") would have gone for the cold, blue tone which is why most sunset photos taken on auto mode look drab and cold.

So where does photoshop comes into play for the final photo? Putting them next to each other...

(L: Original; R: Photoshopped)

What I did in photoshop were:

Cropped the photo to make it tighter

Brought out the details of the darker area (the buildings are brightened, for example)

Brought out the details of the brighter area (the bright area of the sky now have more texture rather than just awash with bright patch)

Minor tweaking of the colour

Tiny amount of vignetting (darkening of the fringe of the photo to bring attention to the middle, a common technique)

Contrast adjustment.

So in the end it is a photoshopped photo, but there is a lot more to photoshopping in its production. As illustrated above, more than half of the work came from getting the shot right in the camera. Photoshopping helps bring out the best in a photo, and just because something is photoshopped does not mean the original is a lot worse. Also worth knowing is that for as long as photography has been around, photographers have been post-processing the photos in the dark room - all we do in photoshop are exactly the same things that photographers have been doing with their negatives for the last century. It is arguable that post processing photos is part of photography itself.

*Note: I actually use Photoshop Lightroom as my main post-processing tool. It is produced by Adobe, the same company which makes Photoshop, but it has different designs and is made specifically for photo-editing, unlike the Photoshop proper which is an all-purpose behemoth with far more capability and uses.

0
comments:

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Air travel is close to our heart. It is a means to our dreams, and a means to reach our loved ones. It brings us to a vantage point we would otherwise never reach, and a soaring height only few before our generation could imagine.

This is Melbourne at night. It is the scenery I enjoy every fortnight as I travel between work and family. It is also the scenery that many on #MH17 would have enjoyed have they made the connection flight to Melbourne, and where the 100 AIDS researchers and activists would have convened to further their noble effort in curbing the AIDS epidemic.

Even though I fly quite often, every time the jet engines revs up on the runway, I still get the jitters. This is the juncture where the devout offers a prayer to the Gods. This is also the juncture where I take comfort in the air safety statistics, the rigour of aeronautical engineering, the excellent training of the air pilots, and the relentless work of the ground staff checking on the aircraft's structure every time it lands.

Much has been written about the fragility of life in light of recent events. Every time I fly my mother would say "be careful" - and I know by that she actually means "please don't be unlucky". It is pointless pointing out that air travel is the safest mode of travel, because we as passengers have zero control over its safety, and when things go wrong, they go horribly wrong. "You only live once", as the partygoers say.

Let us grieve with our fellow friends and families. Let us offer our condolences. Let this be a seed for us to seek peace, for us to engage in world events and do our parts. Let this be a trigger for us to be a better person to strangers around us. Our individual lives are ephemeral, but our love and our values outlive us, and on the larger scale, this is what really matters.

1 comments:

Wednesday, July 02, 2014

I refer to the Dr Sng Kim Hock's letter to The Star on 27 June 2014 titled "Docs' right to dispense medicine". In the letter, Dr Sng (and Association of Specialists in Private Medical Practice, which he represents) is of the view that dispensing of medication is the sacred right of the physician.

The family practitioner must be appreciated and valued for their contribution to society, as they have for decades been providing primary care to the patients, screening the patients and hence ensuring that the general health of the community remains good.

The foundation of their practice includes the dispensing of medication, thus ensuring prompt symptomatic and curative care.

The presence of pharmacies nearby or next door should complement their service, but should by no means displace their role in early and urgent therapeutic intervention of illnesses as provided by the family doctor.

We cannot copy the practice of the developed western world, where there is a clear distinction and division between the roles of a doctor and a pharmacist.

No pharmacy in the West would continue to provide repeat medications or even offer consultation to the patient, to “save” costs, as is sometimes seen in this country.

For the above reasons, the role of the physician and doctor to provide consultation, care and treatment to the patient as a one-stop centre must be protected and continued for the present.

I am flabbergasted that Dr Sng actually believed that a doctor should dispense drugs because it's the sacred right, rather than because of the logistical limitation of our country. As a couple of academics have pointed out in a well-written response, there are a variety of reasons why the separation of role between doctors and pharmacists are beneficial and is something we should strive towards.

The elephant in the room, in my opinion, is the conflict of interest. When doctor prescribes a medication and derives financial benefits from the dispensing of the said medication, it is vulnerable to monetary incentives. Why would I dispense the generic rosuvastatin which is shown to be equally effective in ischaemic heart disease, when I know the rich patient in front of me can afford the Rolls Royce atorvastatin, which would keep my wallet and my pretty pharmaceutical rep happy?

One could argue that similar financially swayed practice may also be seen if dispensing is to be left to pharmacists. However, when the division of role is implemented, there is an additional chain on which government can regulate. For example, in Australia there is a government sponsored campaign for pharmacist to dispense pharmaceutically equivalent generic version of a drug when a patient is prescribed a branded medication.

I am similarly baffled by the fallacious statement in the penultimate paragraph. Is the author implying that doctors in Malaysia will repeat medication because they know the patient, while in Western countries patients have no access to repeat medications? Has he not heard of a "repeat prescription" which allows patients to a certain number of repeat medication? Besides, what is the reasoning about consultation being offered to save cost? Do Malaysian doctors do repeat consults and give discount simply because the patients are also obtaining their drugs in the same practice?

The logic is beyond me. I hope more pharmacy colleagues would stand up and stand for the division of role between two inter-connected but distinct healthcare specialties. In essence, this is only the fairest and safest option for our patients' welfare.

0
comments:

Welcome Message

About Me

A guy who hails from Alor Star, Malaysia, Chang Yang has been living in Australia since 2005. He is a nerd who likes Maths and Physics, and has a lifelong addiction to the pursuit of knowledge. Everything cool or funny he says here is his futile attempt to gloss over his real-life role of a medical doctor. He is currently an anaesthetic trainee in Tasmania.